General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoward Dean vs. Hillary Clinton: Who would get your vote?
I think they're virtually identical when it comes to the issues, although Clinton presents herself as a liberal hawk.
I voted for Dean in the 2004 primaries, and I voted for Obama in the 2008 primaries; however, I'd probably vote for Clinton in the 2016 primaries. Although I'd prefer to vote for Dean again, I wouldn't want to stand in the way of this country getting it's first female president. And it would be heartbreaking to see Clinton blindsided again. I think Clinton deserves the chance because she's worked so hard. Dean has worked really hard as well, but he's never experienced what it's like to have the entire republican party plotting against him and his family.
Nay
(12,051 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)But my real (if highly unlikely) favorite is below:
apples and oranges
(1,451 posts)unfortunately
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)She has certainly stepped up to her role as a Senator, and is bringing more piss to bear on the banksters than any Frosh Senator in history.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Broken_Hero
(59,305 posts)Bertha Venation
(21,484 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)[font size=8 color=purple]Yeeaaargh![/font]
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)cheers
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)A great leader for this nation.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)Lot of experience doing exactly what must NOT be done, whether it is supporting outsourcing, supporting Wal-Mart, supporting Bibi Netanyahu, supporting cutting social programs.
If that is experience, you can have it.
snot
(10,478 posts)The Presidency is not about rewarding someone for their personal efforts or tribulations or even about making a statement; it's about, who will best carry out the will of the people and further their interests.
MelungeonWoman
(502 posts)I got over choosing candidates based on their sex back in the '70's.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)It's the Clintonian third-way BS that got us where we are today.
mnhtnbb
(31,316 posts)apples and oranges
(1,451 posts)I think that would do a lot to advance pay equality and reduce sexism in this country. I think it's worth setting aside past grievances to achieve that milestone, but maybe I'm wrong?
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)advocating voting for ANY woman for president because under that criteria we should vote for Michelle Bachmann. The Party elected the first African-American president and I'm sure millions cast their vote because they knew he was African-American and they wanted to be part of history. Well they did and they were and he is president who has since proven to be a disaster for, well, pretty much everyone except the 1%. Surely we should be demanding better qualifications than "she doesn't have a hangy-downy thing between her legs."
Now, let's talk Elizabeth Warren . . . She even THINKS about putting her hat in the ring in 2016 I'll actually become a Democrat again.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)otherwise let's try to pry the levers of power away from the neoliberal DLCers
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)those are the wisest words I have read here in a long time.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)or sexism. Obama sure hasn't managed something analogous for minorities, but then I didn't expect he would.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I'm not voting for anyone based on race or gender, though. I'm voting for the best option on my ballot, and a neo-liberal woman is not the best option if there is a non-neo on the ballot.
whathehell
(28,968 posts)Elizabeth Warren would be great, but I doubt she's running in '16.
Issues trump ALL, in my opinion...We're not in the position we were, even 20 years ago.
We don't have time to make ANYTHING more, or even equally, as important.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)Little Star
(17,055 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)so Palin could be your candidate in 2016.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)as early as 2003 as I had attended the CA Democratic Convention that year (I was still a Democrat back then). I basically introduced him to this board as NOBODY had heard of him outside of Vermont. However, in the ensuing years, he's become more of a DNC Party Boy and too eager to back virtually anything they do. He's come down on the wrong side of too many issues, including endorsing Race to the Top, that he's just another party shill to me now. Hillary will NEVER get my vote. EVER. The IWR was a deal-breaker -- the never-met-a-corporation-I-didn't-like part is afterthought at this point.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,780 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)no sign of remorse for her errors. Dean was right on Iraq, was punished for it and has earned my admiration for the much-needed 50-state strategy he implemented that gave us the House in 2006.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)All this
dkf
(37,305 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)I still have all my "Dean for President" paraphernalia ready to go.
NoPasaran
(17,291 posts)I was a hardcore Deaniac in 2004 and a Hillary bitter ender in 2008. In both cases I thought they were the best candidates we had, and I still think so.
whathehell
(28,968 posts)and I don't understand why you think they are "virtually identical when it comes to the issues".
Unless he's changed a LOT, Dean has always been far to the left of Hilary.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)that they are furthest to the left of the centrist; whichever can demonstrate that they are NOT a neo-liberal.
The 2004 Dean beats HRC in a landslide. Now? I don't know if either of those two meet the criteria for earning my vote.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)For me, while I would LOVE to see a Woman POTUS? It is Not the first priority but rather a great coincidence if our selected candidate happens to be a woman. It still has to be the "right for the country/us" woman---same vetting, voting records research, policy statements VS actions etc...same with any and All other candidates.
We do need change but not another Clinton, imo.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)worked so hard the last time, and having "the entire republican party plotting against him and his family."
We should vote for a candidate for what s/he stands for politically. Hillary is
a middle of the roader. This means more of the same as Obama. This is
something we can no longer afford. We are already half-way down the
sewer drainage into self-destruct as a democratic nation.
We need a REAL CHANGE. Hillary may call herself a liberal or anything she
wants -- she just isn't. We are in dire need of someone who will really try to turn this nation of ours around 180 degrees.
I believe we are closer to disaster than most people would like to admit. And
we just have no more time to dilly-dally around.
hedda_foil
(16,368 posts)If only...
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)would have been better as a poll.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Little Star
(17,055 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Thanks.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Where Sanders will not be on the Democratic ticket.
It's just utterly absurd.
840high
(17,196 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)I make it a point to vote for a person based solely on their positions/skills. I want a female President in my lifetime, but, first and foremost, I want them to be the right candidate. Hillary does not get my vote. Elizabeth Warren would.
demwing
(16,916 posts)YEARGH!
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)Unfortunately that may very well be due to the war on women.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)protect our future
(1,156 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Granted ten years ago Gov.Dean had the sense to oppose the invasion of Iraq while Hillary did not. But when it comes down to what they would actually support today - I don't see Gov. Dean as the progressive alternative - Their specific position are no more different than the cosmetic policies differences between Obama and Clinton were in 2008 - a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. I would however support a challenge to Hillary from a progressive candidate.
MrTriumph
(1,720 posts)x
tableturner
(1,676 posts)mike_c
(36,213 posts)I'll sit out an election before I'll cast a vote for Hillary Clinton, but of course there will probably be someone running who is progressive enough to vote for. Clinton burned that bridge with her support for invading Iraq.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)or Warren, if she runs
Warpy
(110,900 posts)than the Third Way/Wall Street Clintons.
We already saw the damage one Clinton did. I don't want another one.
brooklynite
(93,835 posts)http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/21/howard-dean-on-2016-at-this-point-im-supporting-hillary-clinton/]
ananda
(28,780 posts)Absolutely.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Enough with the dynasties. Let the Bush and Clinton families fade into political irrelevance where they belong.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)I consider myself a Dean democrat... but sadly I don't think he will be running. I will vote for who ever seems the best for the job.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)Erose999
(5,624 posts)Anybody whose not a DLC neoliberal has my vote.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)I am not sure he will though.
Personally If you critize obama as being too centist I don't see why you would support hillary.